[RD] Restrictions on Abortions are illiberal

[Flying Pig]

If A proposed to resolve the situation by killing B, we might tend to see that as a moral conundrum. And therein lies the central question, at what point does the act of terminating a pregnancy become the act of killing of person?

I'm not sure that is the central question. The point of the unconscious violinist parallel is that most people will at least find it hard to say that it's never acceptable to kill a person who depends on you for survival.

 

[Ryika]

1) Actually no, you don't have the right to opt out what you put your responsability in just because you changed your mind. You can't just say "no, I don't wish to reimburse my loan after all". Well you can say it, but you don't get to stop paying it anyway.
2) Because there IS no way out save for killing someone. We might, as a society, give a "right to screw up" and try to mitigate the consequences of someone making bad decisions, but that's because we can find ways to compensate. You can't find a way to compensate killing someone like that.
3) You're the one putting someone in a state of dependency. You can't then yank the rug under their feet. Just like I can't tie you up and throw you in the water and then say "hey, I have no duty to care for someone else, she could have swim by herself, I'm not responsible for her drowning".

1.) Yes, but that responsibility does not include "continuing to offer your body". It may include being forced to use your body (to earn money), but it does not include direct access to your body.
2.) Yeah but again, you can't be forced to save the lives of other people by offering your body. That includes even harmless things like blood donations. If a person is about to die and you're the only person around who can donate blood, you're still not obligated to do that, and nobody is allowed to force you, even if that means the death of that other person.
3.) But that again ignores bodily self-determination. It's not that you have to "care" for somebody, it's that you have to continue to offer your body.

1) Following your reasoning, you get the right of life and death on all your descendants, because after all, without you they wouldn't exist. I'm pretty sure you can realize how bogus this reasoning is.
2) The "only difference" is a pretty major one, I don't see how or why you think you can just shrug it away as a trivial little detail. The only difference between consensual sex and rape is consent, I'm pretty sure it's still sufficient to make one fun and the other a major crime.

1.) No, you don't. All of your descendants can live without using your body, you can give them away (or if they're older, break ties with them) without causing their death, and that's perfectly legal. The difficult thing here is that you can't give the fetus away and guarantee it's survival.
2.) Yes, it is a major one, but I don't think it changes the rules.

Stopping having sex doesn't kill someone.

So potential death of the other person makes the difference?

Why not ?

Well yeah, why not.

Do you think a person should be allowed to sell themselves into slavery, or more broadly, ownership?
Do you think a person should be allowed to sell their body for a night and if they at some point regret that contract, want to opt out, and the person continues anyway, it would not be rape?

I mean, there is probably a case to be made for these, but as a society we have decided that a person does not have the ability to give that right away. Even if the lives of other people are in it.

BTW, I'm pretty sure you're playing the Devil's Advocate in this entire thread

Well, I'm conflicted on the issue, but couldn't really figure out why I tend to be against late-term abortion. I made the same arguments that I see other people make in this thread to myself, but I couldn't find a convincing reason that didn't boil down to "because I have a double-standard when dead babies are involved", so I made the best case for late-term abortions that I could.

I guess you could call it "playing Devil's Advocate", but I do think the argument is sound, and I still have not heard an argument that convinces me otherwise. People are looking at the whole picture and decide that "for reasons" this is different, just like I do when I justify it for myself, but when you pick apart all the elements that are there, then none of these elements really justify restrictions on late-term abortions. In a way it seems to be a "greater than its parts"-issue for people, in situation A, B, and C you people could not force you, but if you put them all together, then somehow the total sum of the things involved then allows people to force you.

I do not think that's a good counter-argument, not even when I make it to myself, and I hoped people would bring something more cohesive than I brought forward in the "debates" I had with myself. I guess in the end the question really is whether there is actually a limit to "bodily self-determination", and if so, why it only affects this one case, and whether that exception is reasonable. After all, we do not have such an exception in any other law - "The person killed your girlfriend, they stole your goods, set your house on fire, and you gave them a quick death, so you will not be punished for hunting them down and killing them." is not a thing, you'd still be treated as a murderer, only the sentence might be eased up because of those circumstances.

If A proposed to resolve the situation by killing B, we might tend to see that as a moral conundrum. And therein lies the central question, at what point does the act of terminating a pregnancy become the act of killing of person?

The moment we see the fetus as a person of their own, which is usually around the time we stop allowing abortions currently. That in itself is not a point though, because again, not offering a blood transfusion for example is also killing a person by refusing to offer ones body, and is well within the rights of every person, as is not offering the tenth blood transfusion one week down the line.

 

[Mouthwash]

1.) Yes, but that responsibility does not include "continuing to offer your body". It may include being forced to use your body (to earn money), but it does not include direct access to your body.
2.) Yeah but again, you can't be forced to save the lives of other people by offering your body. That includes even harmless things like blood donations. If a person is about to die and you're the only person around who can donate blood, you're still not obligated to do that, and nobody is allowed to force you, even if that means the death of that other person.

The moment we see the fetus as a person of their own, which is usually around the time we stop allowing abortions currently. That in itself is not a point though, because again, not offering a blood transfusion for example is also killing a person by refusing to offer ones body, and is well within the rights of every person, as is not offering the tenth blood transfusion one week down the line.

It is not self-evident that people shouldn't be forced to donate blood. I personally think it should be compulsory (assuming there is need).

 

[Akka]

Well, I'm conflicted on the issue, but couldn't really figure out why I tend to be against late-term abortion. I made the same arguments that I see other people make in this thread to myself, but I couldn't find a convincing reason that didn't boil down to "because I have a double-standard when dead babies are involved", so I made the best case for late-term abortions that I could.

Actually, it's not really a double-standard, but more a special case. As I already pointed it, you can't manage to find an equivalent, because there is no equivalent. Pregnancy is a unique situation, and it's tied to being human (and even being a mammalian). You are reasoning on it backward - we made our social constructs based on what we are as humans, you're trying to redefine what we are as human by basing it on our constructs.

Also, the main convincing reason is that "you put yourself pregnant, own up to it". You created the dependency, you are responsible of it until it ends - you also don't get to throw your 5-years old out in the cold ; you can only ask to give him up for adoption, and it's done for his sake, not yours.
As it was pointed several time, if you put someone in a situation where he's in danger, you don't get to bail out and make it someone else's responsability. I haven't seen a convincing argument against this one.

I guess in the end the question really is whether there is actually a limit to "bodily self-determination", and if so, why it only affects this one case, and whether that exception is reasonable.

Of course there is, there is no limitless rights. You have the right to kill someone who tries to kill you. You can be put in jail if you do a crime. All these (right to live, right to be free) are basic rights, and still they can be taken away depending on your actions.

After all, we do not have such an exception in any other law - "The person killed your girlfriend, they stole your goods, set your house on fire, and you gave them a quick death, so you will not be punished for hunting them down and killing them." is not a thing, you'd still be treated as a murderer, only the sentence might be eased up because of those circumstances.

Actually, self-defense killing is considered an exception. Breaking in someone's property to save a person from a fire is another exception (to property's rights).

 

[Traitorfish]

The moment we see the fetus as a person of their own, which is usually around the time we stop allowing abortions currently. That in itself is not a point though, because again, not offering a blood transfusion for example is also killing a person by refusing to offer ones body, and is well within the rights of every person, as is not offering the tenth blood transfusion one week down the line.

The termination of pregnancy, as a general rule, involves the direct destruction of the foetus. We're not simply letting it die, but actively choosing to kill it. That changes the moral logic somewhat, surely?

 

[Ryika]

The termination of pregnancy, as a general rule, involves the direct destruction of the foetus. We're not simply letting it die, but actively choosing to kill it. That changes the moral logic somewhat, surely?

That's just a technicality though. You could, if you wanted, have an abortion where you get the fetus out of the womb and then let it die on its own purely because it doesn't get what it needs from its host anymore. The reason we don't do that is that it has higher risks for and a more negative effect on the mother. And it would mean longer "suffering" for the fetus, if we accept that "suffering" is a thing in the context of a fetus at the state where it doesn't have a cognitive center yet.

Actually, it's not really a double-standard, but more a special case. As I already pointed it, you can't manage to find an equivalent, because there is no equivalent. Pregnancy is a unique situation, and it's tied to being human (and even being a mammalian). You are reasoning on it backward - we made our social constructs based on what we are as humans, you're trying to redefine what we are as human by basing it on our constructs.

I don't see the big difference between "special case" and "double-standard" here. Again, we can look at all the elements on their own, and it isn't justified in any of those. We then combine the things and then somehow the situation changes to that "special case" because the mother has more responsibility, which again makes sense in an emotional way, but is not how we handle laws otherwise.

Also, the main convincing reason is that "you put yourself pregnant, own up to it". You created the dependency, you are responsible of it until it ends

You've signed up for having sex with him the whole night, own up to it?

you also don't get to throw your 5-years old out in the cold ; you can only ask to give him up for adoption, and it's done for his sake, not yours.

This is again a non-argument, because it ignores the right to bodily self-determination.

As it was pointed several time, if you put someone in a situation where he's in danger, you don't get to bail out and make it someone else's responsability. I haven't seen a convincing argument against this one.

Because I don't think it's a valid comparison. You're not "putting someone in a situation where they're in danger", you are "giving somebody the possibility to exist at your own expense". You are willingly putting yourself in a situation that enables them to live, not putting somebody who can live on their own in a situation that might kill them.

Of course there is, there is no limitless rights. You have the right to kill someone who tries to kill you. You can be put in jail if you do a crime. All these (right to live, right to be free) are basic rights, and still they can be taken away depending on your actions.

Well again, why this specific set of circumstances then?

Actually, self-defense killing is considered an exception. Breaking in someone's property to save a person from a fire is another exception (to property's rights).

You missed the point here. A murder does not stop being a murder just because there are circumstances that make people empathize with the crime you committed. Killing somebody in self-defense however is not murder, was never murder, and will never be murder. "Killing somebody" in itself is not an offense that is automatically against the law (even though it is most of the time).

It is not self-evident that people shouldn't be forced to donate blood. I personally think it should be compulsory (assuming there is need).

That I can respect, and I would be lying if I denied that a part of me feels the same. Still, as a society, we have generally decided that it's not okay to force people to do these things, so I think the stance of late-term abortions still goes counter to that.

 

[Traitorfish]

That's just a technicality though. You could, if you wanted, have an abortion where you get the fetus out of the womb and then let it die on its own purely because it doesn't get what it needs from its host anymore. The reason we don't do that is that it has higher risks for and a more negative effect on the mother. And it would mean longer "suffering" for the fetus, if we accept that "suffering" is a thing in the context of a fetus at the state where it doesn't have a cognitive center yet.

I think that most people would tend to see placing a foetus in a position where it could not possibly survive is functionally and morally equivalent to killing it.

The argument you'd really want to make is that the survival of the foetus also depends on a series of active choices made by the mother, to conduct herself in a way which promotes the survival of foetus (not drinking, smoking, participating in underground cage-fighting tournaments, etc.), and indeed her own survival; if a woman does not make the regular and deliberate decision to eat and sleep, she will die, and the foetus with her, and the fact that we would expect her to do this anyway does not make her decisions any less deliberate, does not make the survival foetus any less dependent on those decisions.

The problem there, of course, is that "bodily autonomy" begins to transform from a principle into a statement of fact, and the question becomes less what we're entitled to do and what we actually chose to do, and liberty tends to become less significant than duty as a moral consideration.

Because I don't think it's a valid comparison. You're not "putting someone in a situation where they're in danger", you are "giving somebody the possibility to exist at your own expense". You are willingly putting yourself in a situation that enables them to live, not putting them in a situation that might kill them.

It's not evident that the two are mutually exclusively. Pregnancy seems to be, in itself, proof that they are not.

The thing about moral choice is, we are not always given the choices we might like, and the point of ethical philosophy is not to fool ourselves into believing that we have been.

 

[Akka]

That's just a technicality though. You could, if you wanted, have an abortion where you get the fetus out of the womb and then let it die on its own purely because it doesn't get what it needs from its host anymore.

Putting someone in a position where he will die is called murder. If you bury someone alive, you're a murderer.

You've signed up for having sex with him the whole night, own up to it?
[...]
This is again a non-argument, because it ignores the right to bodily self-determination.
[...]
Because I don't think it's a valid comparison.

I don't really see how you can make weird comparisons (it has been pointed repeatedly how the rape comparison is completely bogus and I already asked why body self-determination would be somewhat considered sacred and without exception) and then suddendly claim that a comparison is invalid

You claim it's about double-standards, but what I notice is that you are the one using double-standard : you consider body self-determination to be absolute and unhamperable regardless of your actions, unlike life or liberty. That is a double-standard.

You're not "putting someone in a situation where they're in danger", you are "giving somebody the possibility to exist at your own expense". You are willingly putting yourself in a situation that enables them to live, not putting somebody who can live on their own in a situation that might kill them.

I don't see how you can argue with a straight face that making a baby is not putting someone who has no say in the matter in a position where he'll die if you stop caring for him.

Well again, why this specific set of circumstances then?

=>Also, the main convincing reason is that "you put yourself pregnant, own up to it". You created the dependency, you are responsible of it until it ends
That's literally the words right before this part of the quote you're answering.

You missed the point here. A murder does not stop being a murder just because there are circumstances that make people empathize with the crime you committed. Killing somebody in self-defense however is not murder, was never murder, and will never be murder. "Killing somebody" in itself is not an offense that is automatically against the law (even though it is most of the time).

For one who dislike double standards, you're trying very hard to create them about everything else

I didn't miss anything, killing is killing, but there is lawful, sanctionned killing (a soldier in war, self-defense, executing a criminal in a country with death penalty) and unsanctioned killing (murder). The entire difference between "killing" and "murder" is the legality of it, and we decide what is legal according to what we find tolerable and practical.
Same for abortion : it's practical and morally acceptable to destroy a blob of cells, it's not morally acceptable to kill someone just because you put yourself in a situation where it depends on you and then changed your mind.

 

[Perfection]

Some could argue that a human is not self aware until almost a year old, and at what stage do you want to consider the larvae human form, that is not human? We could just exterminate the humans that leech off of others as they rape them for their selfish addictive purposes. Is there a fine line between addiction and the evolutionary need to procreate? We make the claim that morals are part of the evolutionary process, but should we even have morals, because it seems to stifle any liberal thought processes that have also allegedly evolved as well. It would seem to me though that morals evolved and later came liberal ideologies to get past morality.

I don't mind extending the legal concept of personhood until birth even if personhood isn't really present during early infant days. Unlike banning abortion, banning infanticide doesn't involve depriving women the right to exercise control over their bodies.

 

[Mouthwash]

That I can respect, and I would be lying if I denied that a part of me feels the same. Still, as a society, we have generally decided that it's not okay to force people to do these things, so I think the stance of late-term abortions still goes counter to that.

A rock-solid basis for making ethical judgments. "It goes counter to the ethical direction of the society I'm in."

I don't mind extending the legal concept of personhood until birth even if personhood isn't really present during early infant days. Unlike banning abortion, banning infanticide doesn't involve depriving women the right to exercise control over their bodies.

What need does it fulfill for women to have control over their bodies in this particular instance? Generally speaking, aborting a fetus spares them discomfort for a few months and the natural pain of childbirth. But the main reason it is actually practiced is because those women do not want to raise children at that point. So there is a disconnect between the right and the need.

 

[REDY]

I think that its not only what the woman had guts on but it is also about what we require from doctors.

 

[warpus]

I think it's foolish to assume anything about the reasons why women get abortions

The main point is that it's a bad idea to take that legal option away from them

 

[Mouthwash]

I think it's foolish to assume anything about the reasons why women get abortions

The main point is that it's a bad idea to take that legal option away from them

Why is that?

 

[warpus]

It's foolish because it doesn't matter why they're doing it in the context of the question of the legality of abortion

It's a bad idea to take the legal medical option away because it will not stop abortions from happening, it will just make it harder and/or more expensive for women to get abortions. By forcing women to have to travel to a neighbouring state or country to get one, or some shady doctor, or a back alley.. or worse.. you're not only not accomplishing your only stated goal (preventing abortions), but also making the lives of a lot of women (and their families) a lot worse in the process.

 

[Perfection]

What need does it fulfill for women to have control over their bodies in this particular instance? Generally speaking, aborting a fetus spares them discomfort for a few months and the natural pain of childbirth. But the main reason it is actually practiced is because those women do not want to raise children at that point. So there is a disconnect between the right and the need.

I think the onus is on those denying freedom to specify why it should be denied, not on those demanding freedom to prove their worthiness of it.

 

[yung.carl.jung]

It's foolish because it doesn't matter why they're doing it in the context of the question of the legality of abortion

It's a bad idea to take the legal medical option away because it will not stop abortions from happening, it will just make it harder and/or more expensive for women to get abortions. By forcing women to have to travel to a neighbouring state or country to get one, or some shady doctor, or a back alley.. or worse.. you're not only not accomplishing your only stated goal (preventing abortions), but also making the lives of a lot of women (and their families) a lot worse in the process.

I agree 100% which this post and your previous one. Abortion, in any case, should always, under any circumstances, be legal, because one never knows the circumstances.. Rape, marital rape, dysfunctional relationship, danger of death at childbirth, mother is unstable and aware of it.. There's hundreds of possible reasons.

This however does not mean that I personally think abortion is ethical, I might even go as far and say that abortion is unethical even if the child is just a bundle of cells. For me, it's not really about the current state of the child, but rather about its potential.

To me, it feels like killing a child before it developed into a person is kind of like time-travelling and killing a person before it can bloom. Hard to explain.

I have the same stance on many things.. All drugs, incest.. I think the societal taboo, in any case, weighs much, much stronger than the law ever did.

 

[timtofly]

I don't mind extending the legal concept of personhood until birth even if personhood isn't really present during early infant days. Unlike banning abortion, banning infanticide doesn't involve depriving women the right to exercise control over their bodies.

Evolution deprives woman their right to exercise control over their bodies, should we abolish that as well?

Rights are not always expedient in the natural order of things. Sure there are man made laws that restrict how nature works. Rights are the reaction to those laws. But rights are not the natural way of doing what nature requires, in opposition to such restrictions. Most rights are even in opposition to how nature itself works. About the only right that is natural is the right to life.

 

[Senethro]

Evolution deprives woman their right to exercise control over their bodies, should we abolish that as well?

Please stop bringing up evolution in every thread, especially if you mean social darwinism instead.

 

[timtofly]

Please stop bringing up evolution in every thread, especially if you mean social darwinism instead.

Abortion is social darwinism. That is not what I mean. That would not be a reasonable path to take. I cannot use the term natural because rape is also natural if you want to argue that point.

Evolution is the point beyond our control. If you argue so is rape, then I would point out the only thing in our control is to terminate or not. That is not a natural right though. That is one given to a woman in reaction to an ideology that says it is wrong to terminate.

 

[warpus]

I don't see or understand the need to insert the theory of evolution into this discussion at all.